status of low energy susy models confronted with the 125...

Status of low energy SUSY modelsconfronted with the 125 GeV Higgs data

Junjie Cao

On behalf of my collaborators J. M. Yang, et al

Based on our works arXiv: 1207.3698, 1206.3865,1203.3694, 1202.5821, 1112.4391

[email protected] Normal University, Xinxiang, China

HFCPV-2012 October 28, 2012

1 / 35

Conclusion:

• The MSSM can explain the LHC data quite well, but it suffers from severefine tuning problem;

• The CMSSM is disfavored since it is hard to predict a 125 GeV Higgs boson,and at the same time cannot enhance the di-photon rate;

• The nearly Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (nMSSM) is excludedat 3σ level after considering available Higgs data;

• The most favored model is the Next to Minimal Supersymmetric StandardModel (NMSSM), whose predictions about the Higgs boson can naturallyagree with the experimental data at 1σ level.

2 / 35

Catalogue

I Experimental progress in Higgs physics

II The Next to Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM)I General overviewI SM-like Higgs boson mass in the NMSSMI How to compare SUSY with the LHC Higgs data

III SUSY vs experimental Higgs dataI Di-photon signal rateI Four lepton signal rateI Fine tuning extent ∆I χ2 for Golden samplesI Information about low χ2 samples

F Various signal ratesF Representative pointsF Dark matter direct detection

IV Summary

3 / 35

I. Experimental Progress in Higgs physics

Announced discovery on July 4, 2012, by combining 5fb−1 7-TeV data with5fb−1 8-TeV data.

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Rat

eSM

rate

mh = 125.5 GeV

bbV

Atla

s 7

bbV

CM

S 7+

8

bbV

CD

F-D

0

WW

VC

MS 7

WW

Atla

s 7+

8

WW

CM

S 7+

8

WW

CD

F-D

0

ZZA

tlas 7

+8

ZZC

MS 7

+8

ΓΓA

tlas 7

+8

ΓΓC

MS 7

+8

ΓΓC

DF-

D0

ΓΓjj

CM

S 7

ΓΓjj

CM

S 8

ΤΤA

tlas 7

ΤΤC

MS 7

+8

4 / 35

I. Experimental Progress in Higgs physics

Properties:

Mass: most precisely determined. Preferred region 125.5± 0.54GeV.

Couplings:I large uncertainty, may be greatly improved with the whole 2012 data.I Largest deviation from γγ rate (Especially γγjj rate). Enhanced by a factor

about 1.5.I Suppressed hgg coupling and enhanced hγγ coupling is currently favored.

Spin:I Can not be determined in near future.I May be spin 0 and 2, can not be spin 1.

CP: CP even state is favored, but there are discussions about CP-odd case.

Favored conclusions:

The particle is at least partially responsible for EW breaking.

The particle is at least partially responsible for mass generation.

Agree with the SM predictions about the Higgs boson at 1σ level.

5 / 35

II. NMSSM: General overview

NMSSM: singlet extension of the MSSM with Z3 invariant superpotential.

Superpotential: W = WMSSM + λεij HiuH

jd S + κ

3 S3.

Soft breaking terms: Vsoft = VMSSM + m2d |Hd |2 + m2

u|Hu|2 + m2S |S |2

+(λAλεijHiuH

jdS + κ

3AκS3 + h.c .).

WMSSM : MSSM Superpotential without µ-term. S : singlet superfield.

VMSSM : MSSM soft masses. εij HiuH

jd S : doublet-singlet Higgs interaction.

µ parameter is dynamically generated, µ = λ〈s〉.3 CP-even Higgs bosons, 2 CP-odd Higgs bosons and 5 neutralinos.

Rich Higgs physics and dark matter physics.May change squark decay signal.

In the limit λ, κ→ 0, the singlet superfield decouples from the rest of ...If µ is fixed , phenomenology of NMSSM is same as that of MSSM.Only for large λ case can one expect large difference between the models.

6 / 35

II. NMSSM: SM-like Higgs boson mass

Define HSM = sinβHu + ε cosβH∗d , HNEW = cosβHu − ε sinβH∗d ,

HSM =

(G+

v + φsm+iG 0√2

), HNEW =

(H+

φnew+iP1√2

), HS = s +

1√2

(φs + iP2) .

Elements of CP-even Higgs mass matrix in the basis (φnew, φsm, φs):

M211 = M2

A + (m2Z − λ2v2) sin2 2β,

M212 = −1

2(m2

Z − λ2v2) sin 4β,

M213 = −(M2

A sin 2β +2κµ2

λ)λv

µcos 2β,

M222 = m2

Z cos2 2β + λ2v2 sin2 2β,

M223 = 2λµv

[1− (

MA sin 2β

2µ)2 − κ

2λsin 2β

],

M233 =

1

4λ2v2(

MA sin 2β

µ)2 +

κµ

λ(Aκ +

4κµ

λ)− 1

2λκv2 sin 2β.

7 / 35

II. NMSSM: SM-like Higgs boson mass

Large MA Limit: M211 M2

22 M212 and (M2

11 −M233)M2

13.In this case, φnew decouples from (φsm, φs) system.

M2 =

m2

Z cos2 2β + λ2v2 sin2 2β 2λµv[1− ( MA sin 2β

2µ )2 − κ2λ sin 2β

]

2λµv[1− ( MA sin 2β

2µ )2 − κ2λ sin 2β

]M2

33 −∆2

,

Two new features of the SM-like Higgs boson mass:

Additional contribution λ2v2 sin2 2β at tree-level.

Doublet-singlet mixing may push up or pull down the mass.

8 / 35

II. NMSSM: How to compare SUSY with data

Select parameter points favored by low energy experiments and dark matter.I Scan randomly over the SUSY parameter space.I Calculate observables in low energy physics and dark matter physics.I Exclude points with the help of experimental data.I Optimize the scan region and repeat the scan.

For each favored point, calculate χ2 by available Higgs data.

Investigate the properties of the SM-like Higgs boson for low χ2 points.

Perform similar study in the CMSSM, MSSM and nMSSM.

Scan region:Assuming:

mq1,2 = 2TeV, mg = 1TeV, M2 = 2M1.

All soft parameters in the slepton sector have a common value ml .

0.5 < λ ≤ 0.7, 0 < κ ≤ 0.7, 90 GeV ≤ MA ≤ 1 TeV, |Aκ| ≤ 1 TeV,

100 GeV ≤ MQ3 ,MU3 ,MD3 ≤ 2 TeV, |At |, |Ab| ≤ 5 TeV,

1 ≤ tanβ ≤ 60, 100 GeV ≤ µ,ml ≤ 1 TeV, 50 GeV ≤ M1 ≤ 500 GeV.

9 / 35

II. NMSSM: Strategy to compare SUSY with data

Constraints:

LEP constraints:I Electroweak precision observables such as ρl , sin2 θl

eff , MW , Rb.Agree with experimental fit values at 95% CL;

I Lower bound on sparticle masses;I Constraints on electroweak -ino sector: Z → χ0

1χ0, e+e− → χ0

i χ0j , χ

+1 χ

−1 ;

B-physics constraints:I For B → Xsγ, B0 − B0 mixing, D0 − D0 mixing, K − K 0 mixing and

B− → τντ , agree with experimental measurements at 2σ level;I 95% CL upper bound: B0

s,d → µ+µ−, B → Xsµ+µ−;

Higgs physics constraints:I Stability of vacuum state;I SM-like Higgs mass satisfies 123GeV ≤ mh ≤ 127GeV;I Constraints from the Tevatron and LHC search for Non-standard Higgs boson;

Dark matter physics constraints:I Dark matter relic density agrees with WMAP fit value at 2σ level;I 90% CL upper bound on spin independent rate of χ-nucleon scattering;

Require SUSY to explain muon g − 2 anomaly at 2σ level.

10 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: Di-photon rate

Curves:central value (green) and1σ region of the di-photonsignal obtained by combingthe ATLAS and CMS datawith the method introducedin arXiv: 1203.4254(by P. P. Giardino).

1σ best-fit mass:125.5± 0.54GeV.see arXiv: 1207.1374, byP. P. Giardino.

Predictions of the MSSMand the NMSSM about thedi-photon rate can agree withdata at 1σ level.

h→γγ, incl, (ATLAS+CMS, 2011+2012)

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5 CMSSM

SM

σ(h

→γγ

)/σ(

h→

γγ) S

M

MSSM

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

122 124 126Mh(GeV)

NMSSM

SM

σ(h

→γγ

)/σ(

h→

γγ) S

M

1σ best-fitHiggs mass→ ←

122 124 126 128Mh(GeV)

nMSSM


Fig.1: Surviving samples projected on theplane of the di-photon rate versus theSM-like Higgs mass. Only considersamples with 123GeV ≤ mh ≤ 127GeV.

11 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: Di-photon rate

In CMSSM,I mh ≤ 124GeV.

Reason: Muon g − 2 andBs → µ+µ− forbid toolarge M0, M1/2 and A0.

I Di-photon rate is reduced.Reason: The hbb coupling

is slighted enhanced.

In nMSSM, di-photon rate isseverely suppressed.

Reason: Dark matter is light(≤ 40GeV) and singlino-like, must annihilate viaresonant CP-odd Higgsin early universe to getcorrect relic density.As a result, h→ χ0

1χ01,A1A1 will be dominant decay modes.

h→γγ, incl, (ATLAS+CMS, 2011+2012)

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5 CMSSM

SM

σ(h

→γγ

)/σ

(h→

γγ) S

M

MSSM

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

122 124 126Mh(GeV)

NMSSM

SMσ

(h→

γγ)/

σ(h

→γγ

) SM


122 124 126 128Mh(GeV)

nMSSM


Fig.1: vertical axis: di-photon rate.

12 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: 4 lepton rate

Curves:central value (green) and1σ region of the 4 leptonsignal obtained by combingthe ATLAS and CMS datawith the method introducedin arXiv: 1203.4254(by P. P. Giardino).

1σ best-fit mass:125.5± 0.54GeV.see arXiv: 1207.1374, byP. P. Giardino.

Except nMSSM, SUSYpredictions about the 4lepton signal can agreewell with correspondingexperimental data.

h→ZZ*→4l, incl, (ATLAS+CMS, 2011+2012)

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5 CMSSM

SM

σ(h

→Z

Z* )/

σ(h

→Z

Z* ) S

M

MSSM

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

122 124 126

Mh(GeV)

NMSSM

SM

σ(h

→Z

Z* )/

σ(h

→Z

Z* ) S

M


122 124 126 128

Mh(GeV)

nMSSM


Fig.2: Same as Fig.1, but for 4 leptonrate.

13 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: Fine tuning extent ∆

Fine tuning extent ∆:∆ = Max| ∂ ln mZ

∂ ln pGUTi

|.+: Samples with mh in the

range 125.5± 0.54GeV,hereafter called GoldenSample.

In CMSSM, ∆ ≥ 200.

In MSSM,I ∆ & 10.I ∆ ≥ 100 for samples with

enhanced di-photon rate.

In NMSSM with large λ,I ∆ is usually less than 100.I ∆ may be as low as 4 for

samples with enhanceddi-photon rate.

Fine-tuning

1

10

10 2

10 3

CMSSM

Δ

MSSM

1

10

10 2

0 0.5 1 1.5

σ(h→γγ)/σ(h→γγ)SM

NMSSM

Δ

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

σ(h→γγ)/σ(h→γγ)SM

nMSSM

Fig.3 Same as Fig.1, but show Fine tuningextent for surviving samples as afunction of the di-photon rate.

14 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: χ2 for Golden Samples

Golden Sample:124.9GeV ≤ mh ≤ 126.1GeV.

χ2: Computed with 16 setsof latest experimental datafor mh = 125, 125.5, 126GeV.

For calculation method, see1203.4254 by P. P. Giardino.

SM: χ2/d .o.f = 16.5/16.

In MSSM: χ2/d .o.f may beas low as 9.0/16.

In NMSSM with large λ,I χ2/d .o.f may be

as low as 11.0/16.I χ2 > 30 for some samples.

In nMSSM, χ2 > 60.Excluded by Higgs data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

125 125.5 126

mh(GeV)

MSSM

χ2

125 125.5 126

mh(GeV)

NMSSM

125 125.5 126

mh(GeV)

nMSSM

SM

Fig.4 χ2 for Golden samples in differentmodels. 16 sets of latest experimentaldata were used.

15 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: Di-photon signal information

Categorize Golden samples into:I χ2 ≤ 16.5, better than SM.I 16.5 < χ2 ≤ 26.3,

Agree with data at 2σ.I χ2 > 26.3, excluded at 2σ.

Enhanced di-photon rate isstrongly preferred by Higgsdata, which is realized byenhanced Br(h→ γγ).

In MSSM, the enhancementof the Br is mainly by theincrease of hγγ coupling(through light τ loop).Samples with low χ2, ∆ > 100.

In NMSSM, the enhancementof the Br is by the suppressionof hbb coupling (through thesinglet component in h).

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

σ(gg→h→γγ)/SM=1

Higgs coupling to g/SM

MSSM

BR

(h→

γγ)/

SM

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

σ(gg→h→γγ)/SM=1


NMSSMχ2≤16.5

16.5<χ2≤26.3χ2>26.3

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5Higgs coupling to b/SM

MSSM

Hig

gs

co

up

lin

g t

o γ

/SM


NMSSM

Fig.5 Detailed information about di-photonrate. Only Golden samples are considered.

16 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: Four lepton signal information

Unlike the di-photon rate, anenhanced 4 lepton rate is notnecessary to get a low χ2.

Although the hZZ couplingin the MSSM is same as thatin the SM, the 4 lepton signalis never enhanced due to thereduction of Br(h→ ZZ∗)(through the enhancement ofhbb coupling).

In the NMSSM, the 4 leptonsignal may be enhanced bythe increase of Br(h→ ZZ∗)(through the suppression ofhbb coupling).

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

σ(gg→h→ZZ *)/SM=1


MSSM

BR

(h→

ZZ

* )/S

M

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

σ(gg→h→ZZ *)/SM=1


NMSSM χ2≤16.516.5<χ2≤26.3χ2>26.3

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4


MSSM

Hig

gs

co

up

lin

g t

o Z

/SM


NMSSM

Fig.6: Same as Fig.4, but show the detailsabout 4 lepton rate.

17 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: Coupling information

In the MSSM,I Top quark Yukawa coupling

is almost same as that inthe SM.

I Bottom quark Yukawacoupling is always enhanced.

In the NMSSM with large λ,I Top quark Yukawa coupling

is usually reduced.I Bottom quark Yukawa

coupling may be eitherreduced or enhanced.

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1


MSSM

Hig

gs

co

up

lin

g t

o t

/SM χ2≤16.5

16.5<χ2≤26.3χ2>26.3


NMSSM

Fig.7: Same as Fig.4, but show theinformation about Top and Bottomquark Yukawa coupling.

18 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: Representative pointsinformation

MSSM P1 MSSM P2 NMSSM P3 NMSSM P4mh(GeV) 125.1 125.4 125.9 125.2

χ2 9.0 9.6 11.9 12.0σ(h→ γγ)/SM 1.59 1.82 1.45 1.35σ(h→ ZZ∗)/SM 0.86 0.98 1.21 1.16

∆(fine-tuning) 325.4 613.6 6.4 4.1tanβ 59.9 37.1 4.7 4.0

mt1(GeV) 296.6 1470.3 405.6 262.5mτ1(GeV) 109.7 103.4 223.4 176.2mχ0

1(GeV) 57.8 49.7 79.1 78.1

ΩCDMh2 0.112 0.104 0.104 0.109Br(Bs → µ+µ−)/10−9 5.52 4.91 3.91 3.94

δaµ/10−9 3.71 2.31 0.81 0.79σ(hV → bbV )/SM 1.01 1.00 0.62 0.73σ(hjj →WW ∗jj)/SM 0.96 0.99 1.30 1.24σ(h→WW ∗)/SM 0.86 0.98 1.21 1.16σ(hjj → γγjj)/SM 1.77 1.85 1.57 1.45σ(h→ ττ)/SM 0.86 0.99 0.55 0.64σSI/10−46 (cm2) 0.32 0.04 14.3 17.0

19 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: Representative pointsinformation

0

1

2

3

4

bbV WWjj WW ZZ γγ γγjj ττ

Rate

/SM

rate

mh=125.1, χ2=9.0 P1, MSSM

mh=125.4, χ2=9.6 P2, MSSM

mh=125.5, χ2=16.5 SM Higgs

mh=125.5, χ2=7.3 Free couplings

bbV WWjj WW ZZ γγ γγjj ττ

mh=125.9, χ2=11.9 P3, NMSSM

mh=125.2, χ2=12.0 P4, NMSSM

mh=125.5, χ2=16.5 SM Higgs

mh=125.5, χ2=7.3 Free couplings

Fig.8: Predictions of two representative pointsfor the MSSM and the NMSSM respectively.

Free coupling scenario: χ2 = 7.3.Varying freely all Higgs couplings, including hγγ and hgg coupling.

For four benchmark points, their predictions about various signal rates agreewith data at 1σ.

20 / 35

III. SUSY vs data: Dark matter detectioninformation

10-3

10-2

10-1

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

mχ (GeV)10

MSSM

XENON100(2012)

σS

I (×10

-44cm

2)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

mχ (GeV)10

NMSSM

χ2≤16.5

16.5<χ2≤26.3

χ2>26.3

XENON100(2012)

Fig.9: Spin-independent cross section of χ-nucleonscattering with fTs = 0.020.

In MSSM, samples with χ2 < 16.5 predicts small cross section.Reason:

I µ > 1TeV so that the dark matter is highly bino-like.I Have considered constraints from Bs → µ+µ−. For large tanβ, mH very heavy.

In NMSSM with large tanβ, dark matter mass is limited:60GeV ≤ mχ0

1≤ 140GeV.

21 / 35

IV. Conclusion

• The MSSM can explain the LHC data quite well, but it suffers from severefine tuning problem;

• The CMSSM is disfavored since it is hard to predict a 125 GeV Higgs boson,and at the same time cannot enhance the di-photon rate;

• The nearly Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (nMSSM) is excludedat 3σ level after considering available Higgs data;

• The most favored model is the Next to Minimal Supersymmetric StandardModel (NMSSM), whose predictions about the Higgs boson can naturallyagree with the experimental data at 1σ level.

22 / 35

What are we doing? (Study Technique)

• Global Fit of SUSY models using latest experimental data;

• Simulation of sparticle production at the LHC;

• Implication of new data on SUSY models;

• Perform similar study for other new physics models.

23 / 35

Addendum: the nMSSM

1.General overviewSuperpotential: W = WMSSM + λεij H

iuH

jd S + ξFM

2n S .

Soft breaking terms: Vsoft = VMSSM + m2d |Hd |2 + m2

u|Hu|2 + m2S |S |2

+(λAλεijHiuH

jdS + h.c.) + (ξSM

3nS + h.c.).

WMSSM : MSSM superpotential without µ-term. S : gauge singlet superfield.

VMSSM : gaugino and sfermion soft masse. ξFM2n S , ξSM

3nS : Tadpole terms.

5 CP-even Higgs bosons, 2 CP-odd Higgs bosons and 5 neutralinos.

In N=1 supergravity model with a Z5 symmetry, the tadpole terms arise bysupergravity effects at the six loop level.Mn is naturally at EW scale, not destabilize the gauge hierarchy!The tadpole terms can avoid the domain wall problem.

The parameter µ is dynamically generated, µ = λ〈s〉.In the limit ξS , ξF→0, a Peccei-Quinn symmetry exists so that mA1 → 0.

nMSSM is similar to NMSSM with no cubic self interaction of singlet field.Differences: the tree-level mass matrices and the minimization conditions.

24 / 35

Addendum: the nMSSM

2. Higgs sector:

λ, vu, vd , µ, mS , Aλ and m2A = 2(µAλ + λξFM

2n )/ sin 2β as input parameters.

Basis [Re(H0u ),Re(H0

d ),Re(S)], CP-even Higgs boson mass matrix:

m2A cos2 β + m2

Z sin2 β (2λ2v2 −m2Z −m2

A) sinβ cosβ λv cosβ(2µ tanβ − Aλ)m2

A sin2 β + m2Z cos2 β λv cosβ(2µ− Aλ tanβ)

m2S + λ2v2

.

Basis [A = cosβ Im(H0u ) + sinβ Im(H0

d ), Im(S)]: MP2 =

(m2

A λAλvm2

S + λ2v2

).

Two solutions to the Little Hierarchy Problem suffered by the MSSM:

Consider tanβ → 1 and Aλ → 2µ, m2h = (m2

A + m2Z ) cos2 2β + λ2v2 sin2 2β.

Choose the Peccei-Quinn symmetry limit. A1 is light, h→ A1A1 is thedominant decay. The LEP mass bound on h is not valid!

25 / 35

Addendum: the nMSSM

3. Neutralino sector: Define v1,2 = 12 (v2 ± v1).

Basis: ψ0 = −iλ′,−iλ3, 1√2

(ψ0u − ψ0

d ), 1√2

(ψ0u + ψ0

d ), ψ0s

Mχ =

M1 0 g ′v1 g ′v2 0M2 −gv1 −gv2 0

µ 0√

2λv2−µ −

√2λv10

.

χ01 is singlino-dominated with mass given by mχ0

1' 2λ2µv2

(µ2+λ2v2)(tan β+cot β) .

Three characters of mχ01:

The larger λ is, the heavier χ01 will be.

The large tanβ is, the lighter χ01 will be.

The large µ is, the lighter χ01 will be.

Since a light, singlino-like neutralino is difficult to annihilate, dark matter relicdensity can impose constraints on λ, tanβ, µ and also mχ0

1.

26 / 35

Addendum: the nMSSM

0

50

100

150

200

0 10 20 30 40mχ∼0

1

mA

1

Fig.11: Scatter plot of the parameter spaceallowed by current experiments includingconstraints from aµ with mµ = 100GeV ,projected in mχ0

1−mA1 (in GeV) plane.

•: Characterized by mA1 ≥ mZ .In this case, χ0

1 mainly annihilates through exchanging a Z -boson.

4: Characterized by mA1 < mZ and mA1 ' 2mχ01. Most samples.

In this case, χ01 mainly annihilates through exchanging a light A1.

27 / 35

Addendum: the nMSSM

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Br(

h →

χ

χ )

∼∼

0 1

0 1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 50 100 150 200mA1

Br(

h →

bb

)

−

Fig.11: Decay rates of the SM-like Higgsboson as a function of the lightestCP-odd Higgs boson mass.

SM-like Higgs boson h

Mass varies from 70 GeV to 145 GeV.

Dominant decay may be any of thefollowing:

I h→ χ01χ

01;

I h→ χ01χ

02;

I h→ A1A1;I h→ h1h1.

Br(h→ bb) is always suppressed.For mh ∼ 125GeV,

Br(h→ bb) . 10%.

28 / 35

Addendum: the CMSSM

500

700

900

1100

1300

M1/2

(G

eV

)

CMSSMSatisfy Bs→ μ+μ-

Excluded by Bs→μ+μ-

123GeV<Mh< 127GeV

300

500

700

900

1100

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

M0 (GeV)

M1/2

(G

eV

)

CMSSMSatisfy R < 2.3Excluded by R

123GeV<Mh< 127GeV

10

20

30

40

50

60

tan

β

0

10

20

30

40

50

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000

A0 (GeV)

CMSSM

tan

β

300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500

μ (GeV)

CMSSM

29 / 35

Addendum: the CMSSM

400

800

1200

1600

2000

~M

t (G

eV)

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

110 115 120 125 130

Mh (GeV)

σ(gg

→h→

γγ) /

σS

M

CMSSMSatisfy Bs→ μ+μ-

Excluded by Bs→μ+μ-

115 120 125 130 135

Mh (GeV)

CMSSMSatisfy R < 2.3Excluded by R

30 / 35

Addendum: Stop sector in MSSM and NMSSM

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000

At

MSSM (Rγγ < 1)

m(G

eV)

t 1

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000

At

NMSSM (Rγγ < 1)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000

At

MSSM (Rγγ > 1)

m(G

eV)

t 1

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000

At

NMSSM (Rγγ > 1)

1

31 / 35

Addendum: Stop sector in MSSM and NMSSM

Relative light Stop can not be exclude by current LHC data.

Consider Semi-leptonic Analysis:

pp → t1t∗1 → (tχ0

1)(tχ01)→ (b`+νχ0

1)(bjjχ01) or (bjjχ0

1)(b`−νχ01)

This channel can not imposeany constraints after takinginto account t1 → tχ0

1 decaybranching ratio:Br(t1 → tχ0

1) . 50%.For σ(t1t

∗1 ) at NLO, see

W. Beenakker, 1006.4771.

For ATLAS recent searchresult, see arXiv: 1208.2590.

√S = 7TeV

σNLO+NLL(pp → t1

¯t1 +X)[pb]

mt1[GeV]

1000900800700600500400300200100

103

102

101

100

10−1

10−2

10−3

10−4

[GeV]1t~m

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

[G

eV

]10

m

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

t

< m

10

- m

1t~m

1

0 t 1t

~ production, 1t

~1t

~

)exp1 Expected limit (

)theorySUSY1 Observed limit (

ATLAS

sAll limits at 95% CLT

miss1-lepton + jets + E

=7 TeVs, -1

L dt = 4.7 fb

exclu

de

d m

od

el cro

ss s

ectio

ns [

pb

]s

Num

bers

giv

e 9

5%

CL

22.3 1.26 0.40 0.20 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.07

4.49 0.41 0.22 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.07

1.67 0.23 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.08

0.81 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.08

0.72 0.16 0.12 0.10

pp → t1t∗1 → (bχ+

1 )(bχ−1 )→ (b`+νχ01)(bjjχ0

1) or (bjjχ01)(b`−νχ0

1).

The decay of χ+1 is rather complicated: χ+

1 → χ01W , τ+ντ , νττ

+.

S/√B < 3 when m

χ+1

= 250GeV for 5 fb−1 luminosity at 8TeV LHC.

See our work, arXiv: 1206.3865.

32 / 35

Addendum: Part of LHC data

33 / 35

Addendum: Part of LHC data

-1

0

1

2

3

4R

ate

SM

rate

mh = 125.5 GeV

bbV

Atl

as7

bbV

CM

S7

+8

bbV

CD

F-

D0

WW

VC

MS

7

WW

Atl

as7

+8

WW

CM

S7

+8

WW

CD

F-

D0

ZZ

Atl

as7

+8

ZZ

CM

S7

+8

ΓΓ

Atl

as7

+8

ΓΓ

CM

S7

+8

ΓΓ

CD

F-

D0

ΓΓ

jjC

MS

7

ΓΓ

jjC

MS

8

ΤΤ

Atl

as7

ΤΤ

CM

S7

+8

34 / 35

Addendum: Data Treatment (See 1203.4254)

h→γγ, incl. (ATLAS+CMS,2011+2012)

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150Mh(GeV)

SM

Rγγ

=σ(p

p→h→

γγ)/σ

SM


h→ZZ*→4l, incl. (ATLAS+CMS,2011+2012)

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150Mh(GeV)

SM

RV

V=σ

(pp→

h→ZZ

* →4l

)/σS

M


Fiting

µi = Robserved − Rexpected (1)

σi =Rexpected

1.96(2)

Combining

µ =µaσ

2c + µcσ

2a

σ2a + σ2

c

(3)

σ =σaσc√σ2

a + σ2c

(4)

35 / 35

status of low energy susy models confronted with the 125...

Documents